INDIANAPOLIS – A bill that environmentalists say would weaken Indiana's laws regulating Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, is being discussed in committee again this week.
The House Environmental Affairs Committee has taken testimony on HB 1494 by Rep. David Wolkins (R-Winona Lake). The bill would remove some of the regulations and permits required when existing facilities want to expand.
Kim Ferraro, an attorney for the Hoosier Environmental Council, says the bill would take away the public's right to comment. She says giant cattle, hog and poultry farms have massive manure pits that threaten public health.
"Oftentimes existing CAFOs will expand by double or triple, so it's essentially like having a brand new facility being built next to you, and we think it's critical for neighbors who are going to be impacted by that to have their voices heard," she states.
At a hearing last week, Wolkins amended his bill to clarify that anyone who wants to open a new CAFO would still have to seek a permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).
Ferraro says E. coli is the number one polluter of Indiana's waterways.
"Their waste is collected in unlined earthen, football field-sized lagoons with millions and millions of gallons of livestock waste, and that waste is then spread untreated on surrounding properties," she points out.
Ferraro says the legislation also weakens disclosure rules by eliminating current law that says all owners must be listed on the permit application.
"So that would include the corporate entity itself as well as its officers, directors and senior management officials which is important so that IDEM and impacted citizens know who to accountable if there's harm down the road," she explains.
At last week's hearing Ferraro says the bill was last on the agenda, and public testimony was only taken for a few minutes, even though the hearing room was packed with people wanting to speak. Those who did testify told the committee Indiana's system for approving CAFOs is already too lax.
get more stories like this via email
A Knoxville-based environmental group is voicing concerns over what it sees as an increasing financial strain imposed on taxpayers by nuclear weapons projects. Expenses for the Y12 Uranium Processing Facility in Oak Ridge are expected to increase as it ages.
Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said the National Nuclear Security Administration requested an extra $810 million for the Y12 complex. That pushes its total cost to $9 billion, which is $2.5 billion more than the initial estimate.
Kardile suggested this money could be better spent on other state priorities.
"It would just be so great for the state to up their health care, up education. We don't have public transportation here. That can be something great for us - but instead, we're paying towards nuclear weapons," Kardile suggested.
Kardile added the Biden administration total weapons budget for the nation is $19.8 billion. She pointed out delays in construction of the Uranium Processing facility mean it won't be completed until 2029, several years behind schedule.
She said her group is also concerned with the ongoing environmental hazards and public health risks tied to enriching uranium and other activities at the weapons complex. But proponents of the plant point to the jobs and economic impact it has for the local area. Kardile said that wouldn't necessarily go away if the facility closed.
"If the plant were to shut down operations, they would still have to be cleanup, because there is a lot of contamination and radiation from the plant. So, it would still provide jobs for years to come, because that contamination is not going to go away in our lifetime," Kardile added.
She emphasized the importance of Tennesseans collaborating with lawmakers to find the best path to allocate their tax dollars.
Disclosure: Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance contributes to our fund for reporting on Environment, Nuclear Waste, Peace, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
New Mexico has one of the nation's last "wild" rivers, free of human-made structures and community representatives will be back in the nation's Capitol this week to advocate for its protection.
A delegation of tribal leaders, local elected officials, veterans and community leaders will urge members of Congress to pass the M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act. Passage would protect nearly 450 miles of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and their tributaries.
Harry Browne, a commissioner in Grant County, said local residents have championed the legislation for nearly a decade.
"This region is among the nation's most economically challenged," Browne pointed out. "We deserve the benefits of Wild and Scenic Designation, increased tourism, increased investment by small businesses in outdoor recreation activities."
After four introductions, the bill passed out of a Senate committee last year with bipartisan support. As negotiated, it would allow grazing operations to continue on surrounding areas. Nonetheless, some landowners oppose the bill, worried it might restrict their Gila water use and lead to lawsuits.
In 2011, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico won the right to establish a reservation on homelands in southern New Mexico.
Pamela Eagleshield, vice chair of the tribe in Oklahoma, said many of the remaining 800 members hope to return and enjoy the pristine environment.
"Because our petroglyphs, our carvings, our culture, our history; everything that we have is there," Eagleshield emphasized. "If it's changed in any way, that's something that directly affects the spirituality of our people."
Browne noted the Grant County community-driven proposal will benefit people of all kinds.
"That is why my family and I moved here back in the early '90s," Browne stressed. "It would be devastating to see what we have here diminished by un-careful development."
New Mexico's outdoor recreation industry generates just over $2 billion in consumer spending by directly employing 28,000 people.
get more stories like this via email
The Supreme Court's decision in 2023 to roll back the Clean Water Act has meant less federal oversight in protecting the country's wetlands.
Illinois does not have a standalone program, and one organization hopes state legislators will pass measures to change this. Wetlands clean the water, reduce flooding and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
David McEllis, Illinois legislative director for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said Senate Bill 3669 and House Bill 5386 have passed out of their respective committees, but he expects future amendments.
"This would create, through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, a permitting process for when a landowner wants to destroy or fill in or work on wetlands in the state," McEllis outlined. "That covers the gap that was created by the Supreme Court decision."
The department believes landowners can play an important role in protecting the state's nearly 54,000 species of insects, birds, mammals, frogs and fungi by providing nesting and roosting places for habitat and making clean water accessible. The agency warns the state's natural areas are being lost to urban development and agricultural and industrial interests.
McEllis believes a wetlands standalone program would continue where the court's ruling left off and protect the state's remaining untouched and unprotected wetlands. The center's fact sheet said Illinois has already lost 90% of its wetland acreage and the status of the remaining 10% is unknown.
He pointed out the destruction of wetlands has taken place in Illinois for hundreds of years, since the state's establishment in the 1800s.
"There are some existing protections in the state in Cook County and some of the suburban counties, so those wetlands have some protection," McEllis acknowledged. "There are multiple rivers in downstate Illinois, and also wetlands areas throughout the state."
McEllis noted millions of wetlands have already been used for farming purposes, resulting in a loss for the state. A report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said wetlands currently cover nearly 6% of the land in 48 states. An estimated 95% of wetlands are freshwater; the rest are marine.
get more stories like this via email